oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23392 … urt-hears/
Suspended prison sentence and £3k costs, 200 hours community service.
Reading the article I feel a bit sorry for him he doesn’t seem like your usual paddy with an extra card chasing coin. Just hit by a perfect storm of events and doing his best to keep the ship from sinking.
From the link
“Tragically, it was said that since the offences came to light, HM Revenue and Customs had ‘tightened the rules’ around PAYE payments to the Exchequer – and the taxman had applied to make the family firm insolvent” ?
Was the company evading paying proper taxes (PAYE) by hidden employment?
Tragedy? Or just desserts for a tax fraud?
Sounds like the couldnt cope with the extra workload. Some sympathy there, not of his making, and not easily foreseen. You cant win a contract if you price it on very rare possible outcomes;you can`t factor in wars!
How special are the trailers used in this work? That might be a genuine issue.
But even then, by paying proper wages and double shifting trucks, then a lot more might have been achieved.
I don`t know any more than is reported here, but I if I ever get a summons I would his legal team on my side.
Dafproblems:
Reading the article I feel a bit sorry for him he doesn’t seem like your usual paddy with an extra card chasing coin. Just hit by a perfect storm of events and doing his best to keep the ship from sinking.
Not local then? The article is extremely sympathetic and had the “journalist” (used very loosely, Oxford fail not noted for its accuracy or research) done a bit of digging they would have found that they have one of the worst reputations around here and not the first time either. first name terms with the TC. Pop up haulage, still trading and running round with the same liveried trucks but with a different family member at the helm now.
Dafproblems:
Reading the article I feel a bit sorry for him he doesn’t seem like your usual paddy with an extra card chasing coin. Just hit by a perfect storm of events and doing his best to keep the ship from sinking.
Having worked at a non-transport company where their main client base was in Ireland one thing the paddies are good at doing is ignoring the law when they want to treating it as an option to do or not do, second is playing victim and selling a sob story when they get caught bang to rights. Wouldn’t believe a word of it.
Having lived in The Republic for several years (and being an Irish passport holder myself, courtesy of Irish parentage), I would (sadly) add that lying is second nature in Irish culture.
Anyhoo, almost-racism aside, here’s another two-card shuffle but this time with the bonus plan of “assault by beating, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, using threatening behaviour” courtesy of a baseball-bat sized table leg.
A Decision, taken by former Trucknet member TC Nick Denton (yes, really 
).
It’s a longish read, but sufficiently entertaining to be worth five minutes of anyone’s time on a Sunday.
gov.uk/government/publicati … te-removal
Zac_A:
Having lived in The Republic for several years (and being an Irish passport holder myself, courtesy of Irish parentage), I would (sadly) add that lying is second nature in Irish culture.Anyhoo, almost-racism aside, here’s another two-card shuffle but this time with the bonus plan of “assault by beating, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, using threatening behaviour” courtesy of a baseball-bat sized table leg.
A Decision, taken by former Trucknet member TC Nick Denton (yes, really
It’s a longish read, but sufficiently entertaining to be worth five minutes of anyone’s time on a Sunday.
gov.uk/government/publicati … te-removal
Interesting link. Thanks.
Pity it took so long to come to court, lots going on in 2020/21, but looks like a well reasoned verdict.
Zac_A:
Having lived in The Republic for several years (and being an Irish passport holder myself, courtesy of Irish parentage), I would (sadly) add that lying is second nature in Irish culture.Anyhoo, almost-racism aside, here’s another two-card shuffle but this time with the bonus plan of “assault by beating, possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, using threatening behaviour” courtesy of a baseball-bat sized table leg.
A Decision, taken by former Trucknet member TC Nick Denton (yes, really
It’s a longish read, but sufficiently entertaining to be worth five minutes of anyone’s time on a Sunday.
gov.uk/government/publicati … te-removal
Looks like the TC got something wrong on that, at no point do they say he drove bang on 4.5, just that 9 out of 13 times before swapping it was over 4:20 and on the day of the crash it was 4:29, so he wouldn’t have needed a break of 45 as stated by the TC before doing the other work that is supervising a learner.
If you drive for 4:30 you must immediately take a break of 45 or 30 if you’ve had a 15 or start a rest period. If you’ve driven 5:39 or less you have upto your 6 hour point before you’d need a 15
stevieboy308:
Looks like the TC got something wrong on that, at no point do they say he drove bang on 4.5, just that 9 out of 13 times before swapping it was over 4:20 and on the day of the crash it was 4:29, so he wouldn’t have needed a break of 45 as stated by the TC before doing the other work that is supervising a learner.
Unless he happened to have a crash as he was passing a 1/2 mile marker for a layby or was already at the end of a sliproad for a motorway junction where there were services when he had the accident he was going to exceed 4hrs 30.
Unless there was somewhere he was able to stop in his remaining 10 minutes and 1 minute driving he was going to be exceeding his driving hours. There are plenty of motorway junctions where it takes longer than 10 minutes to drive between them, there’s plenty of dual carriageways with no stopping regulations where it’s more than 10 minutes between places you can stop.
So whilst at the time he was stopped he hadn’t exceeded the 4.5hr he wasn’t in a place where he could have stopped to take a break by the time he got to 4.5hrs.
If you drive for 4:30 you must immediately
As soon as the tacho shows 4:30 you’ve committed an offence if the wheels are still turning. 4hrs 30 minutes driving is 270 minutes 00:00 to 00:01 is one minute, the clock doesn’t start from 00:01 and people forget that. 00:00 to the end of 04h:29m is 270 minutes, 4.5hrs. Once the tacho rolls over to 04h:30m you’re actually then driving in the 271st minute.
Conor:
stevieboy308:
Looks like the TC got something wrong on that, at no point do they say he drove bang on 4.5, just that 9 out of 13 times before swapping it was over 4:20 and on the day of the crash it was 4:29, so he wouldn’t have needed a break of 45 as stated by the TC before doing the other work that is supervising a learner.Unless he happened to have a crash as he was passing a 1/2 mile marker for a layby or was already at the end of a sliproad for a motorway junction where there were services when he had the accident he was going to exceed 4hrs 30.
Unless there was somewhere he was able to stop in his remaining 10 minutes and 1 minute driving he was going to be exceeding his driving hours. There are plenty of motorway junctions where it takes longer than 10 minutes to drive between them, there’s plenty of dual carriageways with no stopping regulations where it’s more than 10 minutes between places you can stop.
So whilst at the time he was stopped he hadn’t exceeded the 4.5hr he wasn’t in a place where he could have stopped to take a break by the time he got to 4.5hrs.
If you drive for 4:30 you must immediately
As soon as the tacho shows 4:30 you’ve committed an offence if the wheels are still turning. 4hrs 30 minutes driving is 270 minutes 00:00 to 00:01 is one minute, the clock doesn’t start from 00:01 and people forget that. 00:00 to the end of 04h:29m is 270 minutes, 4.5hrs. Once the tacho rolls over to 04h:30m you’re actually then driving in the 271st minute.
The crash didn’t happen on 4:29, it’s just that his son wasn’t with him at the time of the crash, he claimed he went back to the yard to pick his son up who then took over driving on a provisional, whilst he had completed 4:29, so not 4:30, so no requirement for him to take a 45 or rest period.
Your understanding on how a tacho works is incorrect, each calendar minute is allocated an activity. When the tacho says you’ve driven 1 minute, you’ve driven 1 minute… Because 1 calendar minute has been allocated as driving. You could stop driving and select break 29 seconds after the tacho flicked into 4:30, and the driving time would be recorded as
4:30 in exactly the same way if you stopped and selected break on 4:29:31, there’d be no difference in the 2, so long as once you stop it stay on 4:30 you’re legal, if it flips onto 4:31 after you’ve stopped then that’s an infringment.
So again, at no point have they said he drove 4:30 before supervising his learner son, just I think they said 13 times close to 4:30, 9 of which over 4:20 and 4:29 on the day of the crash, which was presumably after the crash. So at no point would he need a 45 as stated by the TC before supervising his learner son
When all said and done; why a suspended sentence? This ■■■■■■■■ needed locking up.
Conor:
Dafproblems:
Reading the article I feel a bit sorry for him he doesn’t seem like your usual paddy with an extra card chasing coin. Just hit by a perfect storm of events and doing his best to keep the ship from sinking.Having worked at a non-transport company where their main client base was in Ireland one thing the paddies are good at doing is ignoring the law when they want to treating it as an option to do or not do, second is playing victim and selling a sob story when they get caught bang to rights. Wouldn’t believe a word of it.
He’s not even Irish lol
The skip driver is dodgy. No way would he teach someone for 10 years. The bloke is disqualified what will be the point of teaching him to drive.
stevieboy308:
Looks like the TC got something wrong on that, at no point do they say he drove bang on 4.5, just that 9 out of 13 times before swapping it was over 4:20 and on the day of the crash it was 4:29, so he wouldn’t have needed a break of 45 as stated by the TC before doing the other work that is supervising a learner.
Kinda missing the sub-text in the decision. The TC is subtly saying it is no coincidence that cards were swapped over with relatively little available driving time. He’s also clearly saying the tuition of the son was just a transparent ruse and he’s calling him on his bluff.
Just like Civil Courts and Family Courts, the “TC’s court” does not require the high threshold of proof that a Criminal Court does, decisions frequently being made “on the balance of probabilities”.
peterm:
When all said and done; why a suspended sentence? This [zb] needed locking up.
My thoughts exactly. I bet the guy who was hit with the table leg would have wanted his assailant to be locked up.
Zac_A:
stevieboy308:
Looks like the TC got something wrong on that, at no point do they say he drove bang on 4.5, just that 9 out of 13 times before swapping it was over 4:20 and on the day of the crash it was 4:29, so he wouldn’t have needed a break of 45 as stated by the TC before doing the other work that is supervising a learner.Kinda missing the sub-text in the decision. The TC is subtly saying it is no coincidence that cards were swapped over with relatively little available driving time. He’s also clearly saying the tuition of the son was just a transparent ruse and he’s calling him on his bluff.
Just like Civil Courts and Family Courts, the “TC’s court” does not require the high threshold of proof that a Criminal Court does, decisions frequently being made “on the balance of probabilities”.
I wasn’t missing it! He clearly believed he was just using his son’s card, but there wasn’t enough evidence to state that / convict on it.
But then to say even even if it was true he needed a 45, he didn’t
stevieboy308:
But then to say even even if it was true he needed a 45, he didn’t
OK, technically true, but in practice and in the overall context, it’s immaterial. If it were you would you argue in your defence that this particular comment was wrong?
It’s a shame Nick Denton isn’t still here among us otherwise he could have answered for himself
Zac_A:
stevieboy308:
But then to say even even if it was true he needed a 45, he didn’tOK, technically true, but in practice and in the overall context, it’s immaterial. If it were you would you argue in your defence that this particular comment was wrong?
It’s a shame Nick Denton isn’t still here among us otherwise he could have answered for himself
Yes, because it’s not true and I would reference 561/2006 to back up my argument
So you’re “in the dock” facing revocation of your O-licence, and rather than trying to focus on any potential mitigating factors to persuade the TC you ain’t really a bad guy at all, you’re going to dig your heels in over a comment that has no bearing whatsoever on the actual outcome of the PI? OK 
I have to admit I did have a little sympathy for Francis Cleaver mentioned in the opening post until I read Fuzrat’s post, it’s hard to be sympathetic towards a family who appear to have little or no regard for the rules 
As far as Mr Griggs of KDT Skips and Waste Removal in Zac_A’s post is concerned, it does appear that the TC made a mistake but to be honest I don’t think it would have made any difference whatsoever to the result, apart from the breaks question it was a fair conclusion to the hearing, if I was a TC hearing that case I would have wanted to ban the bloke from driving HGV’s or holding an operators licence for life and a day, but would have had to stick with what could be proved and what was obvious, and what was proved and what was pretty obvious was enough to make the breaks thing irrelevant.
I think Mr Griggs got off quite light.